Newtonag said:
Chance/Gary,
Serious question...when Trump is not impeached and is re-elected in November, will you contemplate suicide? I'm actually worried for you(s)
He's been impeached bra.
Newtonag said:
Chance/Gary,
Serious question...when Trump is not impeached and is re-elected in November, will you contemplate suicide? I'm actually worried for you(s)
Chance Chase McMasters said:bmks270 said:
If the letter was given to Trump how did it end up in this photo, apparently unopened?
By taking a picture of it before you deliver it.
Jimmy Valentine said:Rockdoc said:houag80 said:
I truly don't know why staff allows this troll to continue this schtick. It's not like he pays to play.
It ok for a poster to be anti Trump, just like it's ok to be pro Trump. Problem is, he baits posters with hateful rhetoric, trying to get them to catch a ban. Then when he gets a ban, he just logs in on his sock account. Staff knows it but let's him get away with it.
Staff, is this true?
And if it is, can you explain how Rockdoc knows this?
Chance Chase McMasters said:bmks270 said:
If the letter was given to Trump how did it end up in this photo, apparently unopened?
By taking a picture of it before you deliver it.
Chance Chase McMasters said:Trump appointee Fiona Hill testified as first hand witness to QPQ in WH meeting with the Ukrainians. Bolton and Sondland were present and she immediately reported it to NSA lawyers. It was not disputed when Republicans asked questions. One example of many involving direct testimony and documentary evidence. It was included in the charges listed in Article 1.Quote:
just fine with the Dems "evidence" of hearsay and conjecture
Chance Chase McMasters said:Trump appointee Fiona Hill testified as first hand witness to QPQ in WH meeting with the Ukrainians. Bolton and Sondland were present and she immediately reported it to NSA lawyers. It was not disputed when Republicans asked questions. One example of many involving direct testimony and documentary evidence. It was included in the charges listed in Article 1.Quote:
just fine with the Dems "evidence" of hearsay and conjecture
Of course, but don't tell chase/Gary. He's on a roll.titan said:
No one is going to care about this. He can fire an ambassador for what they have on their desk. In other words, no reason at all. Especially if they had been there and de-facto would be suspect to a prior corruption at the time of a change of government. If Yovonavitch is all this is about its going to fizzle.
Chance Chase McMasters said:bmks270 said:Chance Chase McMasters said:bmks270 said:
If the letter was given to Trump how did it end up in this photo, apparently unopened?
By taking a picture of it before you deliver it.
That's a bit odd.
It is. Good idea to keep receipts if you're afraid they'll throw you under the bus later.
But Lev is not an innocent bystander, it's starting to look like it was his idea to get rid of Yovanovitch. Giuliani and Parnas were feeding Trump lies trying to get her fired so they could continue their criming unimpeded.
The shear irony of this! Lol Of all the wishful posters you're the king.Chance Chase McMasters said:Quote:
Here is my hypothesis. Parnas is a swap rat who tried to leverage Trump or his team for his own selfish interests
For sure Lev was in it for Lev but the rest of your hypothesis is wishful thinking. Parnas idolized Trump, he had a Trump memorabilia "shrine" in his house. Trump authorized a joint defense agreement with him just 3 months ago.
Cell phone pictures have timestamps and these are seized documents. They were seized at the airport when Parnas was headed to Vienna to continue the "secret mission" while he was still on team MAGA.
It was already reported Sessions lobbied to fire Yovanovitch well before this thing broke.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/pete-sessions-appears-to-be-congressman-1-ensnared-in-guiliani-associates-indictment
Chance Chase McMasters said:
You're about 200 pages behind. I suggest some catch up reading if you still think Yovanovitch(who Trump appointed) was the problem here.
The origin of the "Yovanovitch is dirty" story was manufactured by Parnas, Giuliani, Lutsenko, and the Russian mob. They were all feeding disinformation to Trump, Pompeo, and Sessions.Quote:
Firtash's motives aren't hard to grasp. As he fights extradition, he has obvious reasons to want to ingratiate himself with Trump. It was in his interest to see the former ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, fired, because her work against corruption particularly her support for the reform-minded chief executive of Naftogaz threatened his business interests.
Who is Dmitry Firtash? A Ukrainian oligarch, pro Russian mobster with KGB ties according to the justice department.
https://www.justice.gov/criminal/fraud/fcpa/cases/firtashd/df_indictment_final_stamped_6-20-13.pdf
Quote:
House Judiciary Chairman Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., has suggested that, if a trade is needed to secure House witnesses, the managers will not agree to any witnesses if Hunter Biden is part of the deal. If true, is the House prepared to give up on proving its case to protect the Bidens from the ignoble moment of answering questions about the Ukraine contract?
So, asserting his Constitutional right to a defense that includes presenting his own witnesses, is part of a "cover-up" now? Dems are chasing their own tails now.Quote:
Nadler insisted on Face the Nation that all "relevant witnesses must be heard" meaning their witnesses. Yet, if allowing witnesses meant Hunter Biden being called, he suggested that they would reject any deal and any witnesses. He dismissed any negotiation as a cover up: "Any Republican senator who says there should be no witnesses, or even that witnesses should be negotiated, is part of the cover-up."
As I previously noted, under Federal Rule of Evidence 401, courts will often review possible testimony under the standard of whether "it has a tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence." Even before the adoption of the Bill of Rights, Congress enacted a statute reaffirming the right of the "defense to make any proof that he can produce by lawful witnesses" in cases of treason and capitol cases. This right to present a defense has been repeatedly reaffirmed by the Supreme Court including in the 1967 opinion in Washington v. Texas, where the Court ruled that "the right to offer the testimony of witnesses and to compel their attendance, if necessary, is in plain terms the right to present the defense, the right to present the defendant's version of the facts . . . Just as an accused has the right to confront the prosecution's witnesses for the purpose of challenging their testimony, he has the right to present his own witnesses to establish a defense."